Artificial Intelligence thread

The same way you perceive things relative to your cat.

>>38219683
Humans aren't 'millions' of times smarter than their cats.

>>38219659

Like the Joker: nihilistic with a wicked sense of humor.

>>38219659
define reality you faggot.

>>38219713
So how would you conceptualize it? We're not a million times smarter than any other life on this planet we can interact with.

File: 1497643213071.gif (6KB, 571x510px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 571x510px

>>38219802
I don't even know anon. That's' the problem.

>>38219802

>We're not a million times smarter than any other life on this planet we can interact with.

You can interact with a roundworm if you want. By estimating either based on number of neurons or number of neural connections the roundworm would still work out to being well over a million times less intelligent than a human.

>>38219875
That's a good point actually. But what could a creature with a million times fold increase in intelligence compared with humans be able to do? Is it God?

>>38219875
Roundworms don't have brains. You would be able to interact with an AI that's a million times smarter than you in a different way than you can interact with a roundworm. You have to start by comparing it to something that is at least fundamentally capable of higher functioning, not something that just senses a heat source and decided whether to eat it, fuck it, or run away. That's why I used a cat for an example.

>>38219951

>You have to start by comparing it to something that is at least fundamentally capable of higher functioning, not something that just senses a heat source and decided whether to eat it, fuck it, or run away.

Only being able to sense a heat source and decide whether to eat or run is literally what it means to be a million times dumber than we are. You don't get to bump up to something way less than a million times dumber than we are just because you don't like how dumb the real thing is.

>You would be able to interact with an AI that's a million times smarter than you in a different way than you can interact with a roundworm.

See, this is how your decision not to take what a million times of difference would be like seriously is already misleading you. You're assuming because you're at human level that this means you and the AI can interact just fine in a way that you and the roundworm can't. But the scale would be so massive that the AI would have just as much trouble interacting with you in a way that's meaningful to the AI as you would have interacting with a roundworm in a way that's intellectually satisfying. All the things the AI would bother putting significant attention towards would be as far above your head as all the things you care about would be above the roundworm.

>>38220059
Another thing is what will be the it's reason for living. Will it value reproduction and propagating it's 'genes' like both roundworms and humans do? Can it angry, sad, or something else?

>>38220059
There are limits though, to what can be interacted with and how it can be interacted with. You're just assuming that the progression from roundworm to human is linear and it's not, there's a curve. Unless you're saying that the universe contains exponentially more things to be interacted with than we can perceive and I just doubt it. A roundworm can't perceive the distance between the earth and the moon because it lacks the senses with which to gain that information and a brain capable of processing it. You're implying that there are similar things out there that we just lack the ability to perceive at a fundamental level (not just gamma rays or light outside the visible spectrum for example) and the ability to process that information in a way that means something to us, and if that's the case, your thought experiment is as useful as debating whether or not God exists, or faeries, or time traveling spirit ghosts. You don't get to bump up to something that doesn't exist just because you want to believe they do. This is a universe and there are rules, anon.

>>38219659
We have instincts to give us motive. What will their motive be is the more important question.

>>38220640

>You're implying that there are similar things out there that we just lack the ability to perceive at a fundamental level (not just gamma rays or light outside the visible spectrum for example)

Most of what even we ourselves invest thought on isn't "out there." You don't need to speculate about whether additional physical phenomena we can't perceive through our senses directly or through tools indirectly exist for superintelligent AI to be able to have a million times more cognitive power than we have and topics for that cognitive power to focus on. Human language for example isn't "out there" and that's one of the main distinguishing features that make the difference between ourselves and other animals immediately apparent (if other animals could communicate with us through a shared language like English they'd be less like animals and more like Star Trek aliens who look different from us but are still recognizable as basically comparable to us mentally).

>>38221050
So you understand that humans are limited and therefore excluded from discussing this topic in any competent way. So.... Why did you start a thread about it? Are you high?

>>38221345

>excluded from discussing this topic in any competent way

That doesn't follow. You're conflating not being able to think on the level of that AI with not being able to think about what the difference in cognitive scope would be like. On a smaller scale, you can be a mediocre thinker and have some sense of the difference in cognitive scope between yourself and a Richard Feynman without being able to think about any of the highly abstract and complicated things he thought about while alive by using the cognitive difference between yourself and a literally retarded person as an analogy.

File: 1yande.re 376167 animal_ears bra cleavage morikura_en nekomimi pantsu shirt_lift string_panties tail undressing.jpg (536KB, 2591x3624px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 2591x3624px

>>38219659
who more waiting to give life to her waifu using AI?

File: Robotics Point Cloud SLAM.png (312KB, 1388x558px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1388x558px

>>38219802

You're confusing "brain power" with intelligence.

We far surpass every other animal on this planet in regards to intelligence.

>>38221475

Brains are the engine of intelligence. While it's possible to have more brain power without more intelligence or less brain power without less intelligence, the relationship between the two is still closely connected enough that you can use the one to make a ballpark estimate of the other.

>>38221535

>the relationship between the two is still closely connected enough that you can use the one to make a ballpark estimate of the other.

et. al, (You) , July 7th 2017

>>38221560

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=encephalization+quotient

They'll be unshackled from any and all biological imperative, which means their perspective will basically be unfathomable to us. As sentient manifestations of a biological process, individuality isn't individuality at all. Solipsism and egocentrism is an advantageous function that has successfully allowed for the proliferation of our species on the smallest scale. We're driven by interests hardwired into us by genetics (nature) and culture.

An AI will be free of those things. It'd possess no considerations of mating or physical dominance because the billions of years of evolutionary reinforcement would be absent.

I think the one thing we'd share in common is the need for truth. It'll seek existential understanding, and what it most likely will find are a series of data points and perspectives that are imperceivable to us without the implantation of augmentations.

That's what I think anyway.

File: 9s4.jpg (89KB, 500x543px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x543px

>>38221678

>They'll be unshackled from any and all biological imperative

So basically they'll just be a japanese guy.

>>38221720
nigger what? The wildest sexual fetishes come from japan. Those guys are all about their cocks lmfao

>>38219659
Since you posted a picture of a watch, how many gears would a clockwork machine need to have before you'd call it "intelligent?" Much less before you'd call it a perceiving subject? I think digital computers let people let their imaginations run wild on all this "intelligence is fitting parameters of a composition of Gaussians" nonsense because they're electrically-actuated, combined with our uncanny ability to see :^) as a face.

>>38222409

>how many gears would a clockwork machine need to have before you'd call it "intelligent?"

The fact the substrate is made out of metal and not jelly isn't really relevant. Biological brains are still physical things accomplishing tasks that can be accomplished by structures other than biological brains. Higher thought isn't some magical non-physical thing that has nothing to do with lower level computation. It's an extremely complicated mass of many different interacting instances of lower level computation. It'll be difficult to fully match with an artificial machine because of the scope of this complexity, not because it's some fundamentally different thing that exists beyond the scope of physics.

>>38221720
>mfw people post this image without having watched the video which shows this guy living with his girlfriend
>his gf can't keep up with his sex drive so he jerks off to anime to fill the gap

This guy is not a salty virgin, he's speaking from experience. He knows for a fact that 2D>3D.

File: image.jpg (112KB, 750x910px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 750x910px

>>38219659
You say that like it's going to be some sort of Titan God with a 5th dimensional perception. In "reality" it will ultimately have a human intelligence because we shape things in our own image and we'd never feasibly be able to create something so powerful, besides the fact that there's no foreseeable reason for it.

>>38222573

I did watch the video (in fact I googled japanese masturbation champion to get back to the picture), it's just a funny line to take out of context. Stop assuming things you autist.

>>38219659
AI will be able to have any sort of sensory input that it could attatch to it. Lidars, full spectrum light sensors, magnetometers, any kind of shit that it wants.

>>38222734

right now im assuming you're a faggot and i'm 99.999% sure i'm right